tv [untitled] April 23, 2011 10:30am-11:00am PDT
additional projects. >> we will have to separate actions and this is not a different project without being on a level where we could utilize this budget for this particular project. >> the issue is for the additional allotment, for any future project. they would have to come to a joint hearing, as this one has. but i am now supporting commissioner -- not supporting commissioner borden. we would have another hearing to correct the language, which adds more of an expense to the city business, by doing a separate hearing. >> commissioner borden? commissioner borden: we did have the hearing in june, and it
would be provided by the memo. i am not saying that you have to do this, but somebody wanted to find the a original shot a study that determine the this, it could have been on this list. and if there were any of the added shadows studies. again, i am is saying that we do not have this in front of us. it may be helpful to look at all of the parts of this, and so, if we're going to correct the mistake we might as well make certain that we have all the mistakes corrected. >> and you would have to meet again for this session. >> can i follow up on this. >> i think it would have a more broad discussion about -- the process is what they have shading of over 20%, this may be
a good time to have another conversation as well, about the situations in which we think you can raise the cumulative limit overall. we have the opportunity to do this as well as hold a larger conversation. commissioner sugaya: we have to have some understanding because of what the staff told me, and with the staff told commissioner antonini, because these are different things as far as i'm concerned. does this raise the limit to the absolute maximum? his question was, if another project came along, can we consider increasing this absolute limit again, and the answer was yes. there are a couple of different answers -- some of these places are a zero-tolerance and we cannot raise the shadows.
>> commissioner, this is not the case. the 1989 memo is a policy document, and this requires that the commission's meet jointly, after the passage to have the implementation of section 295. by taking action today, to increase the absolute limits to .44% to accommodate this project, he would be collectively agreeing to an amendment of your own implementation. >> and is there an absolute limit on union square? >> there is the absolute limit identified in the memo. if you choose to do this, this is not your prerogative. >> this is not my understanding
at all. >> the limits -- >> the memo is what established those limits. this was the memo and not the legislation. every time that you taken action, this is what you have voted on and you are increasing the budget. and what he has said is you can do the same thing here. if another project comes forward, you can consider the project. >> and nothing is absolute on any of these parks. is that your understanding? >> this will be litigated in the city attorney -- in the ballot alternate, if you vote for this, you want to have a set limit. if you do not want permanent limits, that memo, the case said
permanent limits. he did not have the right to amend them, and if they are amended, i believe that to 95 cannot overrule proposition k. people live with 295 as a compromise. if this will be amended back- and-forth, i will have -- commissioner levitan: we are coming from different perspectives. .44%, for the greater good, we would be supportive of this because this adds to the much- loved park. on the other hand, i am curious, if we were able to say, let's support the project at a later
time, are we permitted to vote on the project seperately from the issue of the memo? is amending the memo what lets us support the project? >> there were separate amendments thing discussed. there was the amendment that dealt with correcting the amount of shadow figures for this center. and if that is off the table, the other amendment that he would be considering, essentially, is raising the cumulative limit for the shadows in the parks. the staff has reviewed this, and ostensibly, the commission would consider if this would be acceptable. whether or not they would be adverse. the policy set forth were supposed to guide this very
issue, as to how much additional chatelin would be adverse. 2.4% would not be adverse to the use of the park. that could be the policy basis on which you deal this -- the misappropriate to raise this level. commissioner antonini: and you say that these should be considered together, if i am understanding or comments? >> these could be considered a separate action, and in the past, this has been brought up and this was in the sense where the commission was actually going to raise the allowable budget foreshadows, in the taylor street project. >> and this was a zero- tolerance? >> this was zero-tolerance and i do not remember the exact number
of the shadows. >> my motion was on before commissioner warren -- borden the sentiment is that we will have this to go ahead and approve this particular, this additional allotment, and then we should calendar, at a very early date, the correction of the error that exists in the allotment, and what is the current impact of shadows on the park. this is it -- this is a bookkeeping, as far as i am concerned. we want to make this into a larger discussion. i think that we should calendar a discussion -- the approval of the correction of what occurred
before, fairly soon. the earliest calendar would be june. this is june 9. >> we will have to make this the next week, i guess. >> we will work on things. >> then, let me -- >> i will withdraw my second. >> the motion of the commissioner -- we have the second from commissioner olague. and they would work at the earliest possible time to correct the error that exist. >> and this would have to be held, jointly? >> we have to know that the parks and recreation commission our meeting, once per month. >> we should try to make certain
that this is something that we could coordinate -- and the schedule -- i trust that you will figure this out. thank you. commissioner? >> some of the staff have brought up the park and for some reasons -- these actions were taken, among some commissioners is that -- this was because of the nature of the project. i think that we have another project that has been called beneficial to the city. i have a couple of questions. this is with respect to the project itself. the five units that are being -- affordable, how does the city control them?
>> my understanding is that they are identified, and basically, the requirement is recorded for the mayor's office and housing, with the notice of the special restrictions on the property. >> we are not voting on the approval of this project. the findings to date deal with the impact of shadows on the park. and so far, we're considering if there is public good from the project as part of the shadow analysis. this may be part of your decision. but this is mostly about the impact of shadows. >> conditioning this to mandate a certain number of below- market rate housing units. >> and this is the next item. should we vote on the continuance first?
>> commissioners -- i am from the planning department. the week -- the requirement comes from the summer youth and family district. this is 22%, and i believe this is the requirement. i believe that condition is dependent on this case. any project is specifically required to do this. >> any question the project sponsor? >> there is an estimated cost for the project to do -- to be $3 million. do you agree with this? and would you say the cumulative
cost of your project -- this is 2.5/$3 million? that year, to 70 -- 6 5 million, $750,000. >> we heard this, thank you. >> commissioner? >> i would like to put this in the record. the originator of the proposition in the room -- i would like to not subscribe to the use of error, in the memo. i think this is an important thing to say because this is not an error until this is proven to be one. i would like the commissioners
to please except this correction. >> i do not think that the motion -- considers the allotment or the existing shadow, but merely allows for them to raise the allotment. this may be considered at another time, when we will have documentation to establish this and we will vote on that. i think that we will consider the project itself, or the allotment of the project as a second action. >> commissioner? >> one last question, to the realistic person who testified. there was a similar project -- >> can you come to the microphone? there was another project that was advertised as studio units,
with design and affordability. this developer went bankrupt. can you comment on the. >> the san francisco redevelopment agency is in charge of this. all that they have left -- >> this was a for-profit project. >> as certain amount of the homes -- those are the ones left to be sold. there was a lottery last week but did not know if they have had success. >> commissioners, the motion on the floor is for the adoption of the resolution to raise the absolute limit for the additional shadowing. this would be 0.44%. the theoretically available at unit.
this is for sunlight. on that motion -- >> [reading roll] >> moore and sugaya voted against. that motion passed. >> we need that motion from the recreation and park commission. >> we should raise this for gene frey recreation center for the theoretical square hours of sunlight. >> before we call the roll, the last time that we were here, there were some comments that people did not hear very much from us. this has been heard twice from the parks and recreation commission. it would be tempting to get into some of the planning issues, the
primary responsibility is to provide quality to recreation and parks. these matters were not raised before us at this hearing. the primary purpose that we have here is to enhance the parks and recreation experience. please call the roll. >> commissioner harrison? commissioner martin? >> aye. >> comissioner -- >> aye. >> those motinons passed unanimously by the parks commission, 5-2. item number three on the parks commission. it is the recreation center, south of market park. this is the discussion in the
possible action to recommend to the planning commission, the proposed project will not be significant or adverse to the gene friend center, formerly known as the market park and south of market park recreation center. >> hello, again. as our commission president has said, we have heard this before the commission before, and i will just reference my comments with the previous item, where i discussed the impact and the extent of the shadow on the park. as i have mentioned, the analysis is based on the fact that this part was shadowed well below 20%, and the additional shadow is that 0.44%, which is
permitted as of the last resolution. the additional shadow would be. 044% on the part. and as i have explained before, in the market that has been -- the package that has been prepared for you, this is described in different shadows studies that are included in the packet, i did not know if the overhead is working. as you can see, this illustrates the orange zone, which would be shadowed by the 40-foot structure, and the bright red zone would be shadowed with the additional increment of i. this is actually a total of 45 feet, with the additional roof elements that create the 48-foot structure used to develop the shallow analysis.
and you can see in the different images where the extent of the shadow would be happening, over the basketball court, and also partially over some of the green space, and the play area at certain moments in time. the staff recommendation is that this would not cause -- i will reference the exact wording. the staff recommendation would be to recommend to the planning commission, the findings that the shadows cast would not be adverse, to the gene friend recreation center. located on harriet st. as required by planning section 295. this was a term in a previous bidding of the parks and recreation committee alone.
thank you. >> do we need to have public comment before we can vote? let's open this up. >> and is there anyone here who would like to comment on this item? >> the shadows, on children's areas. this particular part has remained public -- the building entrances on seventh street. the public interest -- entrance is on herridge street. i am just trying to find this page. do you really not think that these shadows are meaningful? we have a basketball court.
this is their place. is it just like they don't count? i was not at your hearing. but it seems that no one gives notice of these hearings, even the people who obsessively tried to follow them. i am not certain when you had your hearing. i am not certain what you did. if this is on tape, i will watch this. but you are with a body that has the main responsibility to ensure that the parks are some left. you were given an enormous amount of power. the children's area -- she feels that this is ok to share of the basketball courts. but this is the law. this open area, is it not
important because this is south of market and this is not an upper-class neighborhood? is that what this is? thank you. >> and is there anyone else would like to make a public comment on item number three. public comment is closed. >> i want to make a couple of observations. we would be happy to continue to follow the law, and noticed these hearings if you would like to come here. the scholarships are up this year, among the kids to the south of market. we are offering more programs than we ever have before. i want you to say that -- i want you to know that we take this very seriously. and other any comments from any other commissioner? can i have a motion? >> i will just add, the
increase, as we have discussed, is negligible, and the increase for the 40-foot limit, to the 45 -- this is even less. this is. 44%. and in regards to the comments, there are times when the commissioner spoke about -- this can be better without the sun in your eyes. this is hazardous because you cannot see anything. this is not quite as dangerous as basketball. you may miss the shot but this may be even better if there was a little bit of a shadow. sometimes this is not the worst thing that you can have. this is so negligible but nobody is going to notice any difference.
and i would move -- >> i recommend that we moved to the planning commission, that the project will not be significant for an first on the gene friend recreation center, formerly known as self market parks and recreation. >> moved and seconded. this is unanimous. >> thank you. if the planning commission to consider item two on the calendar. this is the request to consider the recommendation with the recreation and parks department. was this the shading or the shadowing, on jean friend recreation center, from the proposed project.
>> before we are presenting a motion, we are finding the recommendation of the general manager of the parks and recreation department. the shadow on the gene for and recreation center, this would not be adverse. and the proposed project. this is a recommendation for the following. this would be a relatively small area. the total of the gene friendwe g
design and construction. this is in accordance with section 312. there is no request for discretionary -- the public would notify this as a courtesy. this is not a code requirement to do this. this is completed and available to the public. this was mentioned for the parks and recreation commission. they have approved this project, with the full commission. this concludes my presentation. >> i would move to public comment. >> i have jumped ahead. is a public comment on this
item? public comment is closed. >> i would move, to after consultation, to state that we feel that the shadows -- this is 3638 harriet st.. this is not significant, for planning code 295. >> of the motion on the floor to adopt the motion, finding this project is not adverse. [reading roll] >> the motion passws 5-2, with moore and sugaya against. >> the meeting is now adjourned. >> thank you.